The two changes enacted Wednesday by the NCAA’s Division I Council are notable in their intent to improve the college experience of the student-athlete, and despite the need for additional modifications – more on that in a moment – should be highlighted for streamlining what had long been two of college football’s most unwieldy topics.

The first deals with transfers, ending a protracted series of conversations among administrators about handling what some coaches have termed an epidemic: The growing number of players, especially at quarterback, who transfer at least once in a five-year span.

That trend won’t change, and might even grow with Wednesday’s change. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The idea of transferring has been demonized, mostly by coaches motivated by the cause of self-preservation. The reality: Limiting opportunities for transfers was just another way the NCAA model had let down student-athletes.

The new rule simplifies the process and addresses the ultimate unfairness of the previous model, which allowed coaches, schools and even conferences to limit a student-athlete’s next destination.

Transfers may now leave without asking their current school for permission. Under this new “notification-of-transfer” model, student-athletes will have their names entered into a national database, and coaches from other programs can then reach out to gauge interest.

In other words, the power now rests in the right hands: with the student-athlete, not the program which previously had the option of placing stringent and unfair limits on which schools the transfer could consider.

The Division I Council did warn that conferences can still place limitations “that are more restrictive than the national rule.” That’s unfortunate. The new rule should be universal – meaning every league should allow transfers without any limitations. But it’s a start.

The second rule is nearly groundbreaking in how it reforms the redshirt standard. Previously, players were given five years to complete four seasons of eligibility – meaning one of those seasons had to be spent without participating in any games, often during a student-athlete’s first year on campus.

The same four-in-five timeline exists, only with a catch: Players can now participate in up to four games in a season and still retain that year of eligibility, a change that promotes “fairness for college athletes,” said Miami (Fla.) athletics director Blake James, chair of the Division I Council.

Here’s an example. A true freshman steps on campus. In previous years, he might spend his first year doing all the work – practice, film study, conditioning – without the payoff; the year will be spent holding a dummy for juniors and seniors and biding his time. Now, this true freshman will be able to see time in four games while still earning that redshirt season. On paper, it’s a win for everyone.

It’ll keep players involved, even motivated by the possibility of playing time at some point during the season. It could help with development. You can make the case that the change will help individual teams, in the same way baseball’s September call-up period gives a boost to bullpens and benches – teams get deeper for having an additional handful or more of freshmen sitting in reserve, if only for a few games.

You could even make the case that the change will trim the number of national transfers, if only slightly. It goes back to the idea that players will be more involved and invested while wearing a redshirt, and therefore less likely to look for the exit.

The rule does favor the elite, though nearly all rules do. Take Alabama, which four times in 2018 – say, against LSU and Auburn, in the SEC title game and in a bowl game – can trot out a group of big-time recruits to bolster its roster. In other words, the most talented teams in the country can get an injection of even more talent four times a year.

The same benefit won’t necessarily extend to the Group of Five, or even those Power Five teams outside the national picture. Alabama can get better during those four games; others will simply use that time for player development.

It’s still a win for student-athletes and also a win for coaches, who were vocal on both the Power Five and Group of Five level in their support of the rule change. That should be somewhat worrisome: Rules that are good for coaches and individual programs are often not the same for student-athletes.

And there are potential issues here within each rule. The council’s admitted lack of continuity across conferences regarding transfers leaves one major box unchecked in fully reforming transfer regulations. It’s unfortunate to get this far without enacting changes that are uniform across the Football Bowl Subdivision.

The transfer rule also doesn’t go far enough: The council should next create a rule allowing qualified student-athletes – those who reach a certain GPA or a more standardized academic benchmark – to transfer without a one-year penalty, as in the case with the existing rule regarding graduate transfers.

The potential for misuse of the new redshirt rule does exist, though the likelihood of any profound negatives arising from the change is far outweighed by the positives.

Yes, a coach could see a student-athlete in limited action as a rookie and decide he’s not worthy of the scholarship. And yes, another major-conference program could see a player in short bursts of action on the Group of Five level and reach out to gauge his interest in transferring. But that’s going to happen anyway.

Both rules represent a step forward. Most of all, they indicate at least some move on the NCAA’s part toward evening the playing field. For too long, rules have leaned toward the schools. The transfer rule in particular places some power in the hands of the student-athlete.

Penn State Nittany Lions tight end Joe Arcangelo (41) celebrates with teammates after scoring a touchdown during the fourth quarter of the Blue-White spring game at Beaver Stadium. T
Matthew O'Haren, USA TODAY Sports